[Senate Report 106-333]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 667
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-333
======================================================================
KENAI MOUNTAINS-TURNAGAIN ARM NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR AREA ACT OF
2000
_______
July 10, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2511]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2511) to establish the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area in the State of Alaska,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
1. On page 1, line 5, strike ``Corridor''.
2. On page 3, line 18, strike ``resolution and letter of
support have been received from'' and insert ``national
heritage area designation is supported by''.
3. On page 5, line 3, strike ``establish'' and insert
``established''.
4. On page 5, line 6, strike ``the 11 member Board of
Directors of the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National
Heritage Area Commission,'' and insert ``the management entity
established by section 5.''.
5. On page 6, lines 5 and 6, strike ``the Secretary from a
list of recommendations submitted by''.
6. On page 7, strike lines 3 through 9 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``(b) Representatives of other organizations shall be
invited and encouraged to participate with the
management entity and in the development and
implementation of the management plan, including but
not limited to: the State Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation; the State Division of Mining, Land and
Water; the Forest Service; the State Historic
Preservation Office; the Kenai Peninsula Borough; the
Municipality of Anchorage; the Alaska Railroad; the
Alaska Department of Transportation, and the National
Park Service.''.
7. On page 8, line 23, strike ``corridor'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``area''.
8. On page 9, line 14 through 20 strike subsection (c) and
redesignate the following subsections accordingly.
9. On page 10, line 11, strike ``subject'' and insert ``and
subject''.
10. On page 10, line 12, strike ``shall'' and insert
``may''.
11. On page 10, line 23, strike ``to'' and insert ``to
manage or''.
purpose of the measure
The purpose of S. 2511 is to establish the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area in the State of Alaska,
and designate the board of directors of the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area Commission as the
management entity.
background and need
The Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm corridor in Alaska
highlights the experience of the western frontier, and contains
heritage resources that tell the story of transportation,
settlement, the gold rush, and resource development in a
difficult and remote landscape. Small communities, still very
much as they were in the past, are dwarfed by the sweeping
landscape. Turnagain Arm, once a critical transportation link,
has the world's second greatest tidal range, and a traveler
through the alpine valleys and mountain passes of the area can
see evidence of retreating glaciers, earthquake subsidence, and
avalanches. Wildlife is abundant. Through this rugged terrain,
transportation routes were developed into south central and
interior Alaska. Alaska natives, Russians, gold rush
``stampeders'', and others arrived seeking access to the
resource-rich land. Historic trails and evidence of mining
history are often embedded and nearly hidden in the landscape.
The Iditarod Trail to Nome, used to haul mail in and gold out,
started at Seward. Only in the last half of the 20th Century
was the highway from Seward to Anchorage opened. Before then,
the small communities of the corridor were linked to the rest
of Alaska by wagon trail, rail, and by boat access across
Turnagain Arm and the Kenai River.
S. 2511 creates the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National
Heritage Area. The designation has the support of statewide
tourism and historic preservation groups, and the City of
Seward. Virtually every small community within the corridor has
passed a resolution or submitted a letter in support of the
designation. The Board of Directors of the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area Commission would serve as
the management entity, and would be comprised of citizens of
the local communities and representatives of organizations such
as Native Associations, the Iditarod Trail Committee,
historical societies, visitor associations, and private or
business entities. S. 2511 authorizes the appropriation of $10
million and Secretary of Interior's assistance for a period of
15 years.
legislative history
S. 2511 was introduced by Senators Murkowski and Stevens on
May 4, 2000. Testimony from witnesses on this bill was included
in the record of the hearing held by the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation on May
25, 2000. At its business meeting on June 7, 2000, the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 2511, as
amended, favorably reported.
committee recommendation and tabulation of votes
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on June 7, 2000, by a unanimous vote of a
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 2511, if
amended as described herein.
committee amendments
During the consideration of S. 2511, the Committee adopted
an amendment to require the management entity for the Heritage
Area to be appointed by the Governor of the State of Alaska
rather than the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, the
Committee adopted several technical and clarifying amendments.
section-by-section analysis
Section 1 designates the bill's short title.
Section 2(a) contains Congressional findings.
Subsection (b) describes the purposes of the Act, which are
to: (1) recognize, preserve, and interpret the historic and
modern resource development and cultural landscapes of the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm historic transportation corridor,
and to promote and facilitate the public enjoyment of these
resources; and (2) foster, through financial and technical
assistance, the development of cooperative planning and
partnerships among the communities and borough, State, and
Federal Government entities.
Section 3 defines the term ``management entity'' as the
management entity established by section 5, and provides
definitions for several other key terms used in the Act.
Section 4 establishes the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Heritage Area, and provides a map reference that
depicts its boundaries.
Section 5 describes the makeup of the management entity,
establishes the length of terms for its members, and describes
the procedures for appointing its members and filling vacancies
on the board. Representative of other organizations, including
but not limited to those specified, must also be invited and
encouraged to participate with the management entity in the
development and implementation of the management plan.
Section 6(a) requires the management entity to develop a
management plan for the Heritage Area within 3 years of
entering into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the
Interior, and prescribes the contents of the plan.
Subsection (b) establishes activities to which the
management entity must give priority in assisting communities
in the region, including: (1) carrying out programs which
recognize the important resource values in the heritage area;
(2) encouraging economic viability in the affected communities;
(3) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits; (4)
improving and interpreting heritage trails; (5) increasing
public awareness and appreciation of resources within the
heritage area; (6) restoring historic buildings and structures;
and (7) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs
identifying public access points and sites of interest are
placed throughout the heritage area.
Subsection (c) requires the management entity to conduct at
least two public meetings each year regarding initiation and
implementation of the management plan.
Section 7 authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with
the Governor of Alaska or his designee, and with public
participation, to enter into a cooperative agreement with the
management entity. Pursuant to the cooperative agreement, the
Secretary may provide administrative, technical, financial,
design, development, and operations assistance.
Section 8 clarifies that nothing in this Act grants powers
of zoning or land use to the management entity, changes the
authority of any unit of government to manage or regulate land
use, or limits business activity on private development or
resource development activities.
Section 9 prohibits the management entity from acquiring
real property or any interest in real property.
Section 10 authorizes the appropriation of $10 million,
with a limit of $350,000 for the first fiscal year, and $1
million per fiscal year thereafter, conditioned upon the
management entity completing a cooperative agreement, and
subject to at least a 25 percent match of other funds or in-
kind services. The Secretary's authority to provide any
assistance under this Act terminates 15 years after the date
that the Secretary and the management entity complete a
cooperative agreement.
cost and budgetary considerations
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2511, the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area Act of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis and Ali Aslam (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins
(for the state and local impact).
Sincerely,
Steven Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 2511--Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area Act of
2000
S. 2511 would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Heritage Area in Alaska. The heritage area would be
managed by a nonprofit corporation consisting of seven local
representatives appointed by the Governor of Alaska. The bill
would direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a
cooperative agreement with this management entity to provide
technical and financial assistance. The new corporation would
develop a management plan for the heritage area designed to
help local communities establish and maintain interpretive
exhibits and signs, improve trails, and restore historic
buildings. For these purposes, the bill would authorize the
appropriation of $350,000 for the first year after enactment,
and $1 million annually thereafter, up to a total of $10
million.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 2511 would cost $10 million over
the next 10 to 15 years. The bill would not affect direct
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would
not apply.
S. 2511 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The
state of Alaska and local governments within the state might
choose to participate in the planning for and management of the
national heritage area, and would incur some costs as a result.
Such costs would be voluntary. Participating governments would
be eligible to receive grants to cover a portion of the costs
associated with those activities. S. 2511 would impose no costs
on other state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contacts are Deborah Reis and Ali Aslam (for
federal costs), and Susan Seig Tompkins (for the state and
local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
regulatory impact evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 2511. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
and businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 2511, as ordered reported.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
On May 23, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 2511. These
reports had not been received at the time the report on S. 2511
was filed. When the reports become available, the Chairman will
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for
the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by the
National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service at the
Subcommittee hearing follows:
Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural
Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to present the position of
the Department of Interior on S. 2511, a bill to establish the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor Area
in the State of Alaska.
The Administration believes that the designation of the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm area of Alaska as a National
Heritage Area (NHA) would recognize the nationally distinctive
history of the region and, therefore, supports the purpose of
S. 2511. The Administration, however, must oppose S. 2511, as
currently drafted, but would support the bill if amended to:
Exclude National Forest lands from the proposed
National Heritage Area. Typically, National Heritage Areas
consist of non-federal lands, where federal lands are included
in NHAs, they do not constitute the overwhelming majority of
acreage in the NHA. NHAs are intended primarily to help
communities take the initiative themselves to protect and
interpret cultural and historic resources on non-federal lands.
The appropriate vehicle for managing National Forest lands is
the forest land management plan, which relies on public
participation and incorporates the interests of the general
community.
Vest the responsibility for providing technical
assistance to the management entity and approval of the
management plan for the NHA with the Secretary of Agriculture.
To the extent that the management entity may wish to draw upon
the expertise of the National Park Service, we recommend that
the bill be amended to authorize National Park Service, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to provide such
assistance.
Provide explicitly that, where the management
entity's plan conflicts with the management plan for the
National Forest lands, the latter document controls. To the
extent that a non-federal management entity wishes to invest in
projects on federal lands, the conditions for their
participation should be consistence with the terms and
conditions set forth in section 323 of the FY 1999 Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Consistent with the bottom-up approach common to NHA
planning, the Administration believes that the affect local
communities, not the Federal Government, should determine the
membership of the management entity. Nonetheless, membership
should reflect all the interests of the community--including
environmental interests and, specifically, the interests of
Native Alaskans. The Administration therefore, recommends
deleting the provision regarding secretarial appointment of
management entity representatives and replacing it with
standard language requiring a locally-developed management
entity to enter into a compact with the Secretary. Management
entities are supposed to arise from broad-based community
interest and not be top-down designations. It is expected,
however, that any management entity would be representative of
all local groups, including Native Alaskans.
In addition, we recommend that section 7(b) be revised to
make the provision of assistance discretionary, rather than
mandatory, and to exclude assistance for administrative,
financial, or operations. Although we recognize the need to
provide assistance, and intend to do so to the extent possible,
there are certain functions that should remain the
responsibility of the management entity. Grants funds, rather
than agency appropriations, should be available to address
basic operational responsibilities.
Finally, we recommend maintaining the 50 percent matching
requirement, which is a common requirement in all other
Heritage Areas. Keeping Heritage Areas as locally driven
entities is a fundamental principle, but that would be
difficult to maintain if the Federal Government provided a
majority of funding.
Congress has already acknowledged the significance of parts
of this region by establishing the Iditarod National Historic
Trail and the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway. The
heritage area designation wraps these routes into the whole
picture of human history in the wider transportation corridor.
This heritage area features mountain passes leading into south
central and interior Alaska, including early native trade
routes, waterway connections across the treacherous Turnagain
Arm, the Alaska Railroad and numerous mining trails. Heritage
area designation under this bill will greatly enhance our
understanding of travel and resource development in the last
frontier.
A National Heritage Area is defined as a place where
natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine
to form a nationally distinctive landscape arising from
patterns of human activity. Heritage conservation efforts are
grounded in a community's pride in its history and traditions,
and its interest in seeing them retained. Preserving the
integrity of the cultural landscape and local stories means
that future generations in communities will be able to
understand and define who they are, where they come from, and
what ties them to their home. Heritage areas do not require
federal ownership of property, but do rely on cooperation and
technical assistance from the federal government.
As we have testified before to Congress, there are several
steps that should be completed prior to the designation of a
heritage area. The four main steps are that the proposal should
have a completed suitability/feasibility study; early and
frequent public involvement; a demonstration of wide public
support and feasibility to implement the project in
communities; and commitments from potential partners to support
the project.
We believe S. 2511, if amended as the administration
proposes, can meet a large portion of the intent and spirit of
these steps.
Although a technical suitability/feasibility study has not
been done of this area, many of the themes and the areas within
this corridor have been extensively studied. The Iditarod
National Historic Trail and the Seward Highway National Scenic
Byway are important parts of this Corridor, and both were the
subject of recent studies that found that the Iditarod Trail
and the Seward Highway were nationally significant. To satisfy
the technical requirement of a study in this case, we suggest
language be added to the bill that would require a suitability
and feasibility analysis to take place in the planning process
for this area.
In Alaska, the energy and support this proposal has
engendered bear witness to not only the fulfillment of the
steps outlined above, but to the inspirational quality of the
land and its history. More than 24 local and statewide
organizations have written to express their support. The small
communities within the proposed heritage area support the
proposal. Local governments--including the Kenai Peninsula
Borough and the Seward City Council--have supported the plan.
Statewide visitor organizations, such as the Alaska Visitors
Association and the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism
Association have supported the heritage area proposal, as have
the Kenai Peninsula Historical Association and the State
Historical Commission.
By passage of this bill, Congress will respond to this
grassroots support and will give the small communities on the
Kenai Peninsula within the heritage area new motivation and
means to work together to present the story of their historic
region and to interpret and share this part of America's
heritage. The heritage area model is working well in many areas
in the East--in the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area in
Pittsburgh, in the Black Stone River Valley, and in the Hudson
Valley. The Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage
Area will be the first in this area, but will follow the model
of success seen in other areas.
In summary, the goals of this bill are compatible with the
mission of National Heritage Areas elsewhere, there is the
requisite local support and commitment of success, and the
historic, cultural and natural resources of the area are of
national significance. We urge the Committee to adopt the
amendments proposed by the Administration and pass the bill at
the earliest opportunity.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
of your questions.
------
Statement of Sandra Key, Associate Deputy Chief, Programs and
Legislation, U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Chairman Thomas and members of the subcommittee: Thank you
for the opportunity to testify here today on S. 2511 which
would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National
Heritage Area in the State of Alaska. The Administration
believes that the designation of the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain
Arm area of Alaska as a National Heritage Area (NHA) would
recognize the nationally distinctive history of the region and,
therefore, supports the purpose of S. 2511. The Administration,
however, must oppose S. 2511, as currently drafted, but would
support the bill if amended to:
Exclude National Forest lands from the proposed
NHA. Typically, NHAs consist of non-federal lands; where
federal lands are included in an NHA, they do not constitute
the overwhelming majority of acreage in the NHA. NHAs are
intended primarily to help communities take the initiative
themselves to protect and interpret cultural and historic
resources on non-federal lands. The appropriate vehicle for
managing National Forest lands is the forest land management
plan, which relies on public participation and incorporates the
interests of the general community.
Vest the responsibility for providing technical
assistance to the management entity and approval of the
management plan for the NHA with the Secretary of Agriculture.
To the extent that the management entity may wish to draw upon
the expertise of the National Park Service, we recommend that
the bill be amended to authorize National Park Service, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to provide such
assistance.
Provide explicitly that, where the management
entity's plan conflicts with the management plan for the
National Forest lands, the latter document controls. To the
extent that a non-federal management entity wishes to invest in
projects on federal lands, the conditions for their
participation should be consistent with the terms and
conditions set forth in section 323 of the FY 1999 Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Consistent with the bottom-up approach common to NHA
planning, the Administration believes that the affected local
communities, not the Federal Government, should determine the
membership of the management entity. Nonetheless, membership
should reflect all the interests of the community--including
environmental interests and, specifically, the interests of
Native Alaskans. The Administration, therefore, recommends
deleting the provisions regarding secretarial appointment of
management entity representatives and replacing it with
standard language requiring a locally-developed management
entity to enter into a compact with the Secretary. Management
entities are supposed to arise from broad-based community
interest and not be top-down designations. It is expected,
however, that any management entity would be representative of
all local groups, including Native Alaskans.
In addition, we recommend that section 7(b) be revised to
make the provision of assistance discretionary, rather than
mandatory, and to exclude assistance for administrative,
financial, or operations. Although we recognize the need to
provide assistance, and intend to do so to the extent possible,
there are certain functions that should remain the
responsibility of the management entity. Grants funds, rather
than agency appropriations, should be available to address
basic operational responsibilities.
Finally, we recommend maintaining the 50 percent matching
requirement, which is a common requirement in all other
Heritage Areas. Keeping Heritage Areas as locally driven
entities is a fundamental principle, but that would be
difficult to maintain if the Federal Government provided a
majority of funding.
The Administration enthusiastically supports the concepts
and goals of this bill:
to interpret history and culture of the
corridor,
to facilitate public enjoyment of these
resources,
to foster cooperative planning and
partnerships among communities, state and federal
governments.
We embrace the idea of a heritage area and believe that the
rich history, spectacular natural resource values and community
support merit recognition in a designation of a heritage area.
The bill, as written, could be interpreted as putting
federal land management decisions in the hands of a nonfederal
board of directors, a board that does not represent the full
spectrum of viewpoints on resource management.
S. 2511 also brings into question the legal status of the
lands involved in the Heritage Area. Under the bill, as
written, it is unclear whether this land continues to be
subject to the laws and regulations pertaining to the national
forests. If this substantial area is effectively removed from
the National Forest System, then rights established under a
number of laws, including the National Forest Organic Act, the
Alaska Statehood Act, ANCSA and ANILCA could be affected. If
there is a change in national forest status, then payments to
the State of Alaska and local government entities could also be
affected. If the bill results in a change in national forest
status, then multiple use management and planning under the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) may no longer apply.
Likewise, the public's use of the Chugach National Forest,
under existing laws could be questioned.
We concur with the eloquent description of the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm area's history, heritage and natural
resources in the testimony of the Department of the Interior.
Grassroots efforts
The Kenai Peninsula Historical Society has worked
tirelessly to bring the concept of a heritage corridor for this
area into reality. When the staff of the Chugach National
Forest became aware of the Kenai Peninsula Historical Society's
efforts to designate the western third of the National Forest
as a National Heritage Corridor, we began to work with the
group to incorporate their goals into our forest plan revision.
Approximately 80% of the land within the proposed Corridor is
Chugach National Forest. The Administration supports the Kenai
Peninsula Historical Society's energy and enthusiasm as it
dovetails with Forest Service emphasis to support and assist
local communities on the Kenai. The Chugach National Forest
planning team is strongly considering incorporating a goal and
several objectives in the proposed plan that directly address
the Kenai Peninsula Historical Society's interests. We
encourage proponents to continue working with the planning
team.
Predominant land management/local community commitment
For a Heritage Area designation in the vicinity of the
Chugach National Forest, we believe that the Secretary
Agriculture, would be the most effective and appropriate
Secretary to be vested with responsibility for providing
technical assistance to the management entity and approval of
the management plan. The proposed Heritage Corridor of about
1.3 million acres encompasses about 1 million acres of the
Chugach National Forest. The Heritage Corridor is surrounded by
the remainder of the Chugach's over 5.3 million acres. The
Forest Service, as the predominant local land manager, has well
established community ties.
The Forest Service shares many of the goals and objectives
expressed by the proponents for the Heritage Corridor
designation. We often work in partnership with a variety of
organizations, such as our interpretative partnership with the
Kenaitze Indian Tribe at Footprints, and our collaboration with
the Alaska Department of Transportation and the Hope-Sunrise
Historical Society to relocate mining cabins and a Forest
Service guard station, during reconstruction of the Seward
Highway.
Like the Park Service, the Forest Service has employees
with the skills and experience needed to support and guide a
Heritage Corridor effort. We also value heritage resources and
consider it part of our mission to preserve them and interpret
them to the public. Our Chugach Design Center is renowned for
its design work on interpretive displays, maps and
publications. Chugach National Forest employees at the ranger
districts in Seward and Girdwood and Supervisor's Office
employees in Anchorage work daily with local community groups
in project and forest planning efforts. They support those
communities's efforts with grants through the state and private
forestry programs for economic development. The Chugach
National Forest's commitment already exists.
In conclusion
The Department of Agriculture opposes S. 2511 as it is
written but would support the bill if amended to:
exclude National Forest lands from the
Heritage Area,
vest responsibility for providing technical
assistance and management plan approval with the
Secretary of Agriculture and allow the Park Service, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
provide technical assistance, and
explicitly provide that if the management
entity's plan conflicts with the Chugach National
Forest Plan, the Forest Plan controls.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
changes in existing law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 2511, as
ordered reported.